JEPP Online – Page 20

Banning parties in the name of democracy?

1st March 2016JEPP Online

Selin Türkeş-Kılıç (Yeditepe University)

Do supranational institutions and legal norms influence the domestic politics of banning political parties? Studying two cases of party closure, the former Basque nationalists Batasuna and the pro-Kurdish DTP, Selin Türkeş-Kılıç shows that besides the political considerations for party bans, domestic court rulings on such bans sought to reinforce the legitimacy of these bans. Constitutional court justices evoked principles of international and European law, even if they contradict the initial recommendation of EU institutions to refrain from a party ban. To find out more read Selin’s article “Political party closures in European democratic order” published in the Journal of European Public Policy.

Ideas, political power and public policy

19th February 2016JEPP Online

What is the relationship between power and ideas? What makes ideas powerful? How do ideas drive social and political change? Daniel Béland, Martin B. Carstensen and Leonard Seabrooke, guest editors of the Journal of European Public Policy’s Special Issue “Ideas, political power and public policy”, present an exciting set of contributions, which set out to address these pressing questions. Join Martin as he introduces the Special Issue’s contributions and have a look at the issue itself here. We hope you enjoy reading!

Divided we stand

18th January 201622nd January 2016JEPP Online

O-Keefe_Wieczorek — Míchéal O’Keefe (European Central Bank) & Marta Wieczorek (European Central Bank)

The quest for a solution to the European financial crisis has produced divisions inside the European Parliament. Nonetheless, Mícheál O’Keeffe, Marion Salines and Marta Wieczorek show that internal divisions did not shape the EP’s external negotiation strategy in trilogues with the European Commission and the Council. Their article “The European Parliament’s strategy in EU economic and financial reform” published in the Journal of European Public Policy illustrates that the EP opted for similar bargaining tactics when it stands united (financial supervision) and when it is divided, as in the case of economic governance reforms. In both instances, parliamentarians placed a premium on legitimacy and transparency concerns with regard to the EU’s response to the crisis.

The logics of NGO advocacy

18th January 20162nd March 2016JEPP Online

Wiebke Marie Junk (University of Copenhagen)

Commission consultations with NGOs link European policy-makers with civil society and represent an essential feature of participatory democracy in the EU. Analysing NGOs’ lobbying strategies on environmental policy in the EU, Wiebke Marie Junk argues that public consultations “may enhance the ‘participatory’, but not necessarily the ‘democratic’, nature of ‘participatory democracy’ in the EU”. To find out more read her article “Two logics of NGO advocacy: understanding inside and outside lobbying on EU environmental policies” published in the Journal of European Public Policy.

A European healthcare union in the making?

18th January 2016JEPP Online

Vollard_Bovenkamp_Martinsen — Hans Vollard (Leiden University), Hester van de Bovenkamp (Erasmus University Rotterdam) & Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen (University of Copenhagen)

If you are a savvy traveller in Europe, you have probably come across the European Health Insurance Card, which grants European residents free access to a number of healthcare services in any EU member state. Yet, healthcare policies continue to be mainly a national prerogative. Hans Vollaard, Hester van de Bovenkamp and Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen show, nevertheless, that the EU has become increasingly involved in the public health decisions of its member states. Read their article “The making of a European healthcare union: a federalist perspective” published in the Journal of European Public Policy to learn more about how a co-operative federative system is shaping the provision of healthcare in the EU.

When policy masquerades as science

18th January 2016JEPP Online

sarah_hartley — Sarah Hartley (University of Nottingham)

Independent scientific advice is highly valued by the Commission in preparing regulatory decisions. At the same time, there is broad agreement that risk assessment is rarely value free and hence requires involvement from private and public interest groups. In “Policy masquerading as science: an examination of non-state actor involvement in European risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals” published in the Journal of European Public Policy, Sarah Hartley shows how the European Food Safety Authority together with the Commission eschewed the input provided by non-scientists and public stakeholders in preparing its policy decisions: “This study joins a growing number of cases suggesting experts move beyond influencing policy to actually making policy.”

Changing the rules

18th January 2016JEPP Online

Christer_Karlsson — Christer Karlsson (Uppsala University)

To comply with the demands of EU accession, new member states see themselves compelled to revamp their constitutions, which often implies far-reaching constitutional changes. But political elites choose different strategies of constitutional change. According to Christer Karlsson, reformers can alter the explicit wording of their constitution or its implicit meaning. Their choice of strategy is not only shaped by the rigidity of constitutional amendment procedures and the number of governing parties that need to be brought on board, but also by how politicized the issue at stake actually is. Read the full story in his article “Explaining constitutional change: making sense of cross-national variation among European Union member states”, published in the Journal of European Public Policy.

Happy 2016!

17th January 201612th February 2016JEPP Online

The entire JEPP-team wishes you a happy, healthy and successful 2016. JEPP has had a very healthy 2015 with a record number of submissions, surpassing 330 by the end of the year. We hope that you will continue to keep us busy in 2016. In our first newsletter of the new year, we will highlight new journal content, which will appear shortly in the second issue of the 2016 volume.

We also want to draw your attention to the first issue of 2016, which we released last December. With its focus on the Euro crisis, it may look like a Special Issue, but – we promise – it is not. Based on independent submissions, we were able to put together an exciting collection of pieces addressing different facets of the Euro crisis. Wolfgang Streeck and Lea Elsässer discuss the viability of EMU under conditions of continued economic disparities among its members; George Tsebelis explores some of the lessons that the Greek and other EU governments can draw from the Greek crisis; Sergio Fabbrini compares the EU with other unions of states and argues that the EU’s institutional set-up obstructs rather than facilitates the adoption of constitutional solutions in situations such as the Euro crisis. For Philipp Genschel and Markus Jachtenfuchs, EU integration has made remarkable advances in ‘core state powers’ and they contrast the EU experience with state-building dynamics. Stefaan De Rynck provides a fascinating account of the policy process through which the EU adopted a centralized system of banking supervision. James D. Savage and Amy Verdun show that the Euro crisis has left a firm imprint on the Commission, which adapted its internal organisation and strategies to re-gain influence in the crisis-induced integration process. The crisis has had an impact not only on domestic and EU-level institutions: Alina Polyakova and Neil Fligstein ask if the crisis has transformed public attitudes “causing Europe to become more nationalist?”

With the Euro crisis turning into some kind of permanent state of affairs, it is likely to keep you (and us) busy in 2016. In terms of political and media attention, the Euro crisis has already been surpassed by the refugee crisis. We thus encourage you to send us your work to help us better understand the refugee crisis in all its variegated facets, its dynamics and impact on the EU and domestic institutions, political competition and policy reform. Crises also loom elsewhere: The domestic developments in Hungary and Poland have triggered wider discussions about ‘democratic backsliding’. The possibility of ‘Brexit’ is still looming and raises a plethora of questions about the trajectory of the EU. While we welcome work on all of these topics, rest assured that JEPP is not a crisis journal! We will continue to publish work on European and EU politics and policy-making in the broadest possible sense. Or as Jeremy would say: We are a “broad church”, though a secular one.

Take care,

Berthold & Jeremy

JEPP is taking a short holiday break

14th December 2015JEPP Online

JEPP prides itself on being a fast and efficient journal. However, JEPP is going into sleep mode for the period December 22, 2015, until January 2nd, 2016 (no doubt some of you will be muttering ‘the Editors are always in sleep mode’). Jeremy will be on holiday with Sonia, Tess, Molly, and Harvey (the dog) at their holiday home in Akaroa, on the Banks Peninsula in South Island, NZ. The family will do some kayaking and coastal walking, but Harvey will only paddle, fearful of actually swimming. Berthold and Jess are spending the holidays in Palm Beach (Jess’ parents refuge from the Candian winter) and will explore the odd island in the Caribbean by boat. Yes, there is something odd here. Shouldn’t Jeremy (at his age) be going on a Caribbean cruise and Berthold doing the kayaking? OK, Berthold does ski and mountain hike much of the year while Jeremy is trying to develop muscles by lifting glasses of NZ Pinot Noir.

Michael will be neither cruising nor kayaking, he also does not own a holiday home (yet), and sees no need to develop (even more) muscles, but simply looks forward to conquering a pile of novels from his sofa, well wrapped into the new Norwegian wool blanket. Philipp will escape London’s confusingly Bavarian Winter Wonderland, leave shopping sprees on Oxford Street and plum pudding behind to spend Christmas with his family near Munich (and also ignore his impending statistics exam as long as possible).

By all means, submit your articles into the online system while we are relaxing during the holiday period. Better still, you too should have a jolly nice break from academic things.

Best wishes for the upcoming holiday from the JEPP team
Jeremy, Berthold, Michael, and Philipp.

JEPP’s Best Paper Prize goes to Michael Baggesen Klitgaard, Gijs Schumacher and Menno Soentken

30th November 201530th November 2015JEPP Online

Klitgaard_Schumacher — Michael Baggesen Klitgaard (University of Southern Denmark) & Gijs Schumacher (University of Amsterdam)

“The partisan politics of institutional welfare state reform” was selected by two of JEPP’s editorial board members (Christoph Knill and Frank Schimmelfennig) as the best article published in a normal issue of JEPP in 2015. In their award statement, the jury praises the paper for making “a highly important contribution to the welfare state and party politics literature”. The paper makes a novel argument with the objective to demonstrate that the government partisan effect is significantly stronger on institutional welfare state reforms than on ordinary social policy reforms. To probe this claim, the authors employ an innovative dataset and a mixed-methods research design. The jury, furthermore, highlights the paper’s exceptional findings, which fit well with existing research but also contradict a number of major points made by the literature on welfare state reform, including the role of party ideology and class politics. JEPP congratulates the prize winners for their exceptional work!